Category: Columbia

Categories
Columbia Syllabus

Columbia. Course outline, Railroad Problems. Seligman, 1898-1904

 

The following course outline was found in the papers of the historian of American economic thought, Joseph Dorfman. It has neither date nor instructor listed but from the Columbia University catalogues and the Bulletins of the Faculty of Political Science we can conclusively determine that the second semester course with this name and number was taught by E.R.A. Seligman every other academic year beginning 1897-98 going through 1903-04. He also taught the course in earlier years (course number VIII) and later years (course number 108).

___________________

Course Description

Economics 7 — Railroad Problems; Economic, Social and Legal. — These lectures treat of railroads in the fourfold aspect of their relation to the investors, the employees, the public and the state respectively. A history of railways and railway policy in America and Europe forms the preliminary part of the course. The chief problems of railway management, so far as they are of economic importance, come up for discussion.

Among the subjects treated are: Financial methods, railway construction, speculation, profits, failures, accounts and reports, expenses, tariffs, principles of rates, classification and discrimination, competition and pooling, accidents, and employers’ liability. Especial attention is paid to the methods of regulation and legislation in the United States as compared with European methods, and the course closes with a general discussion of state versus private management. — Two hours a week, second half-year (1899-1900): Prof. [Edwin R. A.] Seligman.

Source: Columbia University, School of Political Science, Announcement, 1898-99, pp. 29-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 7

OUTLINE OF LECTURES
ON
RAILROAD PROBLEMS:
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND LEGAL

  1. The problems stated.
  2. Literature of the subject.

BOOK I. HISTORY OF RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY POLICY.

Chapter I. England.

  1. Turnpikes and canals.
  2. Genesis of the railway system and development to the investigation of 1844.
  3. Development to Cardwell’s Act of 1854.
  4. Development to Railway Commission of 1873.
  5. Commission of 1881-1882.
  6. Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888.
  7. Present conditions and outlook.

Chapter II. United States.

  1. Highroads and internal improvements.
  2. The Erie Canal and Mississippi River.
  3. Genesis and development of the railway system.
  4. The early charters.
  5. Railway consolidation.
  6. Sleeping car and express companies.
  7. Fast freight lines, co-operative and joint-stock.
  8. Pools and traffic associations to 1877.
    1. Chicago-Omaha Pool.
    2. Southern Railway and Steamship Association.
    3. Southwestern Rate Association.
  9. Trunk Line combinations to 1877.
    1. Saratoga Conference.
    2. Railway wars of 1874-1876.
    3. Live stock pool and evening system.
    4. Standard oil contract and petroleum pool.
    5. Anthracite coal pool.
  10. Trunk line pools 1877-1887.
    1. West bound pool.
    2. East bound pool
    3. Joint Executive Committee of 1879.
    4. Railway wars and Trunk Line organization of 1885.
  11. Railway co-operation 1887-1898.
    1. The Inter-state Commerce Act of 1887.
    2. The Anti-Trust Law of 1890.
  12. Present outlook

Chapter 3. Other Countries.

  1. Belgium. The mixed system.
  2. France. Division of the field.
    1. Development to the law of 1842.
    2. Development to the law of 1859.
    3. Development to the law of 1884.
    4. Present outlook.
  3. Germany. Government ownership.
  4. Italy. System of leases.
    1. The law of 1865.
    2. The agreements of 1885.
  5. Holland, Austria and other European countries.
  6. Australia and the British colonies.
  7. Comparison with the rest of the world.

BOOK II. THE RAILWAYS AND THE INVESTORS.

  1. The railway as a corporation.
  2. Financial methods.
    1. The financing of a railway.
    2. Conflict of interests between directors, stockholder and bondholders.
  3. Railway Construction.
    1. Cost of railways in America and Europe.
    2. Construction companies.
    3. Other subordinate corporations.
    4. Parallel roads.
  4. Railway speculation.
    1. Stock exchange speculation.
    2. Railways and commercial crises.
  5. Railway profits.
    1. Stock watering.
    2. Limitation of dividends.
  6. Railway failures and receiverships.
  7. Railway accounts and reports.

BOOK III. THE RAILWAYS AND THE PUBLIC

  1. Railway competition.
    1. The law of competition.
    2. Competition and combination.
    3. Competition for the field.
    4. Competition with waterways.
    5. Competition of carriers on the line.
    6. Separation between motor and carrier.
    7. Running powers or working arrangements.
  2. Railway expenses.
    —Fixed charges and operating expenses.
  1. Railway tariffs.
    1. Principle of railway rates.
    2. Cost of service principle.
    3. Value of service principle or charging what the traffic will bear.
    4. Relation between the two principles.
  2. Classification of Rates.
    1. Theory of classification.
    2. History and practice of classification in Europe and America.
  3. Personal discriminations.
    1. Allowance for quantity.
    2. Rebates and special rates.
  4. Local discriminations.
    1. History and practice of local discriminations.
    2. Just and unjust discriminations.
    3. Principle of profits vs. principle of tolls.
    4. Sliding scale or zone system.
    5. Pro-rata or equal mileage, and short-haul rates.
      —Other projected reforms.
    6. Differentials between cities and export trade.
  5. Pools.
    —Money pools vs. traffic pools.
  1. Extortion and reduction in rates.
    —Comparison of European and American rates.
  1. Passenger rates.
    —The Zone system in Austria-Hungary.
  1. Accidents.

BOOK IV. THE RAILWAYS AND THE EMPLOYEES

  1. Employers’ liability for accidents.
    —Comparison of European and American legislation.
  2. Railway strikes. Especially strikes of 1877 and 1886.
  3. Profit sharing and other schemes.
  4. Relief associations. Compulsory and private insurance.
    1. Insurance against sickness.
    2. Insurance against accidents.
    3. Insurance against dishonesty. Guarantee funds.

BOOK V. THE RAILWAYS AND THE STATE.

  1. Early State legislation.
  2. The Granger movement and its results.
  3. Maximum and minimum laws.
  4. Pro-rataand short-haul laws.
  5. Laws requiring improved facilities.
  6. General railroad acts.
  7. State and national aid to railroads. Land grants, etc.
  8. Railway taxation.
    1. Basis—Taxation of franchise, property, gross earnings, net income, etc.
    2. Double taxation. Inter-state complications.
  9. State railroad commissions.
    1. Compulsory commissions.
    2. Advisory commissions.
  10. National Legislation.
    1. Early attempts.
    2. The Reagan and Cullom bills.
    3. The Inter-state Commerce Law of 1887.
  11. The Inter-state Commerce Commission.
    1. Character of decisions.
    2. Powers and duties.
    3. Comparison with English commission.
    4. Projected amendments.
  12. Present outlook and prospects.
  13. General conclusion as to State vs. private ownership and management.
    1. Financial arguments.
    2. Political arguments.
    3. Socio-economic arguments.

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection.Box 13. Folder “Economics History Project”.

Categories
Columbia Exam Questions

Columbia. Exam questions for prospective PhD candidates, Jan 1949

 

An earlier post provides a transcription of questions from the corresponding May 7, 1949 exam given to prospective Ph.D. candidates in economics. That May exam was fished from the papers of Albert G. Hart and had only 29 questions. The January exam below comes from Martin Bronfenbrenner’s paper and consists of 46 questions. In both cases the examinees were to select five questions to answer. The large difference in the number of questions might be due to a missing page, but I suspect it has something to do with the number of prospective Ph.D. candidates taking the exam. 

_______________

EXAMINATION
for
PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D. IN ECONOMICS

(January 8, 1949, 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

Questions on Specific Areas of Economic Study

Answer any FIVE but NOT MORE THAN FIVE questions.

  1. Write all answers legibly in ink or on a typewriter.
  2. Begin each question on a fresh sheet of paper. Write your name on all sheets used.
  3. Be as specific as the question permits.
  4. Be sure that your statements are relevant to the question.
  5. Allow yourself time to reread your answers before handing in the sheets.

__________________

  1. What characteristics of the U.S. population in 1935 and what major features of the original Social Security Act produced the controversy over full reserve vis-à-vis pay-as-you-go financing? What in your judgment is the strongest argument in support of each position?
  2. Analyze the relationship of the Keynesian aggregate consumption function to the consumption functions of individuals.
  3. “The legislation of 1933-1935 virtually put the Federal Reserve Board out of business as a policy agency.” Evaluate this assertion and state why you either accept or reject it.
  4. It is argued that any serious step to control the present inflation in this country would precipitate an even more costly depression. Do you agree? Why, or why not?
  5. Discuss the nature and causes of the “grain problem” that prevailed in the USSR on the eve of the First Five Year Plan.
  6. To what extent do prices in the USSR correspond to and to what extent deviate from “labor value”?
  7. Discuss the nature and merits of the so-called “value of the service” principle of utility and railroad rate making as distinct from the “cost of service” principle.
  8. Discuss the arguments for and against a public policy of subsidized rural electrification. Assume, for the purpose of the discussion, that without a subsidy only 60% of the farms of the country in question will be electrified.
  9. Write a commentary on the following statement appearing in a recent book on appraisal:
    “Modern writers in business finance have greatly clarified the problem of valuation by insisting that, with exceptions presently to be noted, the value of an enterprise is dependent entirely on prospective earnings.”
  10. Compare the factors influencing the relative quantities of different agricultural commodities produced in (a) Russia, (b) England, (c) New Zealand or Australia, and (d) any tropical area.
  11. Discuss, with examples, the influences affecting the speed and pattern of industrialization.
  12. Define marginal productivity and discuss the conditions necessary, if the factors of production are compensated on that basis, to the result that the sum of the shares should equal the total product.
  13. Define elasticity of demand, distinguishing price elasticity and income elasticity, and outline briefly the problems affecting the degree of success which is practicable in trying to measure such elasticities.
  14. Discuss the “just price” in relation to market price, in medieval economic thought.
  15. Write a critique of Veblen’s theory of business cycles.
  16. Trace the reasons for the balance of payment difficulties of Great Britain since 1945.
  17. Discuss Soviet legislation on collective farms (kolkhoz) enacted after the publication of the model statute of an agricultural artel in 1935.
  18. Imagine yourself a capitalist in about 1830 with money to invest in manufacture. What considerations would influence your decision whether to put your money into manufacturing in Great Britain or into manufacturing in the United States?
  19. “The businessmen alone could not overthrow them; nor could they flourish under them. Therefore the peasants had to be called in, as well as the labor groups. The movement was thus enlarged into one of the great revolutionary movements of history, uniting interests and schools of thought ranging from millionaires to Communists; but it went forward raggedly because businessmen, peasants, and labor did not want exactly the same things and did not want to move forward at the same speed.” This is from Owen Latimore’s discussion of the Chinese Revolution. What modifications would need to be made to turn the statement into a serviceable description of the American Revolution?
  20. Differentiate the various sacrifice theories of equity and point out their implications for progressive taxation.
  21. Some economists hold that “the business cycle” came to an end with 1914 and that subsequent economic fluctuations are of different character. Do you agree? Why, or why not?
  22. Do you believe that Federal Reserve policy in 1946-1948 was helped substantially in resisting inflation? Explain with reference to open-market operations, interest rates, reserve requirements, and handling of Treasury cash balances.
  23. Discuss the major changes that have occurred in the structure of prices in the United States since the outbreak of the First World War. Note important alternations in terms of exchange, and comment on the implications of these shifts. Appraise 1948 price and wage relations, with reference to earlier standards.
  24. To what extent is the theory of demand, as it applies to competitive conditions, open to testing? Discuss the chief attempts that have been made to establish demand functions empirically.
  25. What are the objectives of correlation analysis? What are the chief measurements needed to define the relationship between two variables? What is the relation between correlation and causation?
  26. Enumerate the main items, or groups of items, that make up a country’s balance of international payments. Then explain what is meant by “equilibrium” or “disequilibrium” in the balance of payments.
  27. Does the doctrine of comparative costs (in any of its various formulations) depend on the assumption of full employment? How, if at all, does unemployment affect the case for international specialization and exchange?
  28. Describe the uses of money in pre-literate society and the manner in which they may be found to be institutionalized separately.
  29. Discuss the view according to which capitalism developed in Western Europe in the course of a more comprehensive process involving the nationalization of the major fields of social activity.
  30. How would you explain the fact that short-term interest rates have been sometimes higher, sometimes lower, than long-term rates?
  31. How does the retention of income by corporations affect economic stability?
  32. Explain the factors responsible for the sharp rise in worker productivity in agriculture, 1940-1948.
  33. Discuss the problems which arise in attempting to apply the theory of the firm under conditions of pure competition to the actualities of, say, an Iowa corn-hog farm of 250 acres.
  34. State the points at issue in the treatment of the government sector in the national income accounts, and evaluate the alternative methods of computation.
  35. Give a critical appraisal of von Mering’s book on The Shifting and Incidence of Taxation.
  36. Why did industries such as steel and cement adopt the basing-point price system?
  37. What does it mean to say that utility is measurable or non-measurable? Is it measurable?
  38. Explain and comment on three of the following characterizations of money interest:
    1. Interest equals the marginal rate of time preference.
    2. Interest reflects a discount of future satisfactions.
    3. Interest reflects the marginal productivity of capital.
    4. Loss of interest is the price of liquidity.
    5. Interest reflects the rate at which aggregate capital grows.
    6. Interest is the appropriation by the banks of the profits inherent in the power to coin money.
    7. Interest on money loans is a sinful exploitation of the needs of the distressed.
  39. The assumption, frequently made in partial analysis, that the marginal utility of money is a constant
    1. implies
    2. is compatible with
    3. is inconsistent with
    4. is synonymous with

the further condition that one or more of the goods being considered is an inferior good. Explain your answer.

  1. Under static conditions, one is more likely to encounter “perversely” sloping supply curves than “perversely” sloping demand curves. Why?
  2. Explain the materials and methods available historically for comparing unemployment in the United States and England.
  3. Discuss the pros and cons of industry-wide bargaining.
  4. What specific problems of federal and state taxation are presented by insurance companies?
  5. Define income-elasticity, cross-elasticity, and “own-elasticity” (Marshallian concept) of demand. Explain their interrelations and place in economic theory. Show how each can be determined for a given consumer if we are informed about his indifference-surface.
  6. Discuss the contribution to knowledge of business cycles made by recent empirical studies.
  7. State the relation between marginal productivity and prices of productive services under perfect competition. Reformulate this statement to make it correct under assumptions (a) that the employer is a monopolist; (b) that he is a monopsonist (i.e., can influence his buying-prices by the scale of his purchases); (c) that he is both at once. Reformulate further to give a general statement applying to these cases as well as to that of perfect competition.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers, Box 23, Folder “Exams: comprehensives 1949-73”.

Image Source:“Library Columbia University, New York City” The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 30, 2018.

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economists M.I.T.

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, David Durand. Obituary, 1996

 

David Durand’s Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation (degree awarded in 1941) was published as Risk Elements in Consumer Instalment Financing. National Bureau of Economic Research, Financial Research Program, Studies in Consumer Instalment Financing, no. 8. New York: NBER, 1941. He is perhaps best known among economists, as Paul Samuelson notes, for his pioneering empirical work on the yield curve.

David Durand. Basic Yields of Corporate Bonds, 1900-1942. NBER, June 1942.

______________

Prof. David Durand of MIT Dies at 83
February 28, 1996

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–Dr. David Durand, a professor emeritus of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was an early adherent of applying statistical methods–especially sampling–to problems in corporate finance and other fields, died Monday, Feb. 26, at the MIT Infirmary. Dr. Durand, who lived in Lexington, Mass., was 83.

His family said the cause of death was aplastic anemia.

Raised in Ithaca, N.Y., Dr. Durand received a bachelor of arts degree from Cornell University in 1934, and both a master’s degree (1938) and PhD (1941) from Columbia University. He was a lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve during World War II, serving in the Hawaiian Islands and on Guam.

Before coming to MIT in 1953, he was associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, then in Riverdale, N.Y., and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. He also did consulting work for the Twentieth Century Fund and taught part-time at Columbia.

It was at the National Bureau of Economic Research, said MIT economist Dr. Paul A. Samuelson, an Institute professor and Nobel laureate, that Dr. Durand “pioneered the empirical study of how long-term bonds usually require a higher yield than short. Everyone understands that today, but he was the first to document it.”

Dr. Durand’s first appointment at MIT was as a research associate at the Sloan School of Management. He became an associate professor in 1955 and professor in 1958. He retired in 1973.

In addition to the application of statistical methods to financial problems, his fields of specialization included term structure of interest rates and statistics.

His research in finance included a sampling analysis of default experience for consumer installment loans, farm mortgage lending experience and factors affecting bank stock prices.

His work with statistical methodology and techniques involved the early use of punched card equipment for general statistical tabulation as well as for mathematical computation.

He was the author of a textbook, Stable Chaos, as well as numerous articles for professional journals. He was an associate editor of Financial Management for a number of years.

Some of Dr. Durand’s strongly-held views stirred lively debate with other members of the management faculty.

One of his former doctoral students, Don Lewin of Lewin Associates of York, Pa., a consulting firm, said that Dr. Durand “used his keen intellect and statistical knowledge and skills to develop many ideas” and to question whether statistical models matched reality. “Frequently, this did not endear him to those enamored of a model. Indeed, his doubting approach caused him to be often in the center of a controversy.”

In one such case involving the cost of capital, Dr. Durand wrote that two Sloan colleagues who disagreed with him “have cut out for themselves the extremely difficult, if not impossible, task of being pure and practical at the same time. Starting with a perfect market in a perfect world, they have taken a few steps in the direction of realism; but they have not made significant progress…”

Dr. Durand insisted, too, Dr. Lewin said, that the model builder rely heavily on his or her own judgment. In Stable Chaos, Dr. Durand wrote, “Systematic procedures and objective tests serve to strengthen the analyst’s judgment, not to replace it; they enable him to learn more quickly and more effectively from his own experience, and to sharpen his critical faculties.”

Dr. Durand also championed good writing and enlivened some of his own journal articles with intriguing figures of speech. In one, he wrote: “To suppose that any imaginative analyst or responsible financial manager, interested in a comprehensive view, would be content to base an important appraisal and the subsequent investment decision on just one of the many useful numbers available is on a par with supposing that a hungry gourmet at a smorgasbord would be content to make a whole meal of pickled herring…”

Another former student, Dr. Paul D. Berger, professor and department chair in Quantitative Methods & Marketing at the Boston University School of Management, recalls Dr. Durand as “a special teacher and mentor to many students. He had a ‘jolly’ manner about himself that set students at ease and allowed them to enjoy the material he imparted to them. He cared about people and was dedicated to academic integrity and excellence.”

Dr. Durand was a member of the American Economic Association, the Finance Association, the American Society for Quality Control, the American Statistical Association, the Econometric Society, the Biometric Society, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics and the International Association for Statistics in Physical Science.

He leaves his wife, Edith (Elbogen) Durand of Lexington, and a daughter, Marie Durand of Princeton, N.J.

There was no funeral service.

A memorial service will be held in the MIT Chapel on April 13 at 1 PM.

Contributions may be made to Deep Springs College in Dyer, Nev. 89010.

Source:  MIT News. Obituary for Prof. David Durand, February 28, 1996.

Image Source:David Durand portrait at the MIT Museum Website  .

Categories
Columbia Economists Pennsylvania

Columbia. Memorial minute for Professor Henry Seager, 1930

 

Earlier posts dealing with Columbia professor Henry Seager provided his syllabus on the trust problem and a link to his 22-page general lecture on economics from 1907/08. This post provides a report of his death in Kiev from bronchial pneumonia while traveling through the Soviet Union, details from an endowment for economic research in his will, and a memorial minute delivered by his colleague Wesley Clair Mitchell (that probably reveals at least as much about Mitchell as it does about Seager.

_________________

HENRY SEAGER DIES ON TOUR OF RUSSIA
Columbia Spectator.  September 30, 1930.

Professor Henry Roger Seegar [sic], former professor at Columbia, […] died during the Summer vacation period.

Professor Seegar [sic], formerly of the Department of Political Economy, died in Kiev, Russia, in August. He was on tour with twenty-five other economists who were making a study of the Soviet Government’s five-year industrialization plan. After spending some time in France and Germany, the group left for Russia on July 7.

Professor Seegar [sic], was taken ill with bronchial pneumonia a month later. His condition grew worse and several days after the first attack, he died.

Member of Party

One of the leading economists in the country, Professor Seegar [sic],  had been asked to accompany the party which was under the leadership of one of his former pupils, David Ostrinsky. The purpose of the expedition was to study at first-hand the conditions in the Soviet Republic.

[…]

Source:  The Columbia Spectator, Vol. 54, No. 1 (September 25, 1930) p. 8.

_________________

ENDOWMENT GIVEN BY SEAGER’S WILL
Late Professor Leaves Fund for Advancement of Study and Research
Columbia Spectator. October 16, 1930.

A foundation to be known as the Schuyler Fiske Seager Endowment for the Advancement of Economic Study and Research “is to be established at Columbia from the residuary estate of the late Dr. Henry Rogers Seager, Professor of Political Economy here for twenty-five years, according to terms of his will published yesterday. Since the will has not as yet been probated, the total amount of the endowment cannot be ascertained yet, it was learned yesterday at the office of Frederick A. Goetze, Treasurer of the University, who was named executor of the estate.

The will falls in line with a statement recently made by Professor James C. Egbert of the School of Business, who declared in his report to Dr. Butler that an endowment for economic study would be highly desirable. Professor Egbert was of the opinion that such a sum could be used for the formation of a bureau of public utility economics.

Was Noted Economist

Dr. Seager who died this Summer while at the head of a group of economists studying conditions at Kiev, Russia, was known as an outstanding figure in academic economics. He was classed as an authority whose opinion frequently was sought in the practical determination of affairs.

Until the death of the first of seven relatives, the will stipulates, the foundation will not be started. These seven are to receive the residuary income during their lives and upon the death of the survivors the balance of the share of each in the principal is to be added to the fund.

The Trustees of the University have been named trustees of the residuary fund by Dr. Seager and they are to make the payments to the seven beneficiaries, who include his an uncle, an aunt, two nieces and two nephews. Dr. Seager wrote that he was establishing the foundation in memory of his father, Schuyler Fiske Seager, and his son who bears the same name. The will directs the trustees to expend the incom. of the fund each year “for such purposes as they shall deem most likely to contribute to the advancement of economic study and research during such year.”

Source:  The Columbia Spectator, Vol. 54, No. 16 (October 16, 1930) pp. 1,3.

_________________

Memorial minute for Professor Seager

There being no reports from the Standing committees the Faculty proceeded to the election of a Chairman of the Committee on Instruction to succeed Professor Seager. The President [Nicholas Murray Butler] recognized Professor [Wesley Clair] Mitchell, who offered the following resolution:

The Faculty of Political Science records with deep sorrow the loss of one of its most distinguished and best-loved members, Professor Henry Rogers Seager, who died in Kiev, August 23rd, 1930.

Coming to Columbia from the University of Pennsylvania in his thirty-second year, Professor Seager gave his life to those high interests for which universities stand—the increase of knowledge, the training of future investigators, and the effort to raise the level of human life by taking thought. His contributions to economics were characterized by keen analytic insight and by wide acquaintance with actual conditions. No student of labor problems was held in higher esteem by the various interests concerned with that warmly controversial field. His sound judgment, his accurate knowledge, and is impartiality made him equally successful in dealing with the various forms assumed by business organizations and the efforts of government to prevent abuses of corporate powers. As a teacher Professor Seager won the affectionate gratitude of successive generations of students, whom he helped with their personal as well as their intellectual problems. As a colleague, he was generous and just, winning the confidence and the affection of his associates, young and old. As a citizen he was zealous and sensible: working ardently for causes which commanded his sympathy, yet shrewd in planning and efficient in execution—the type of “social reformer” who uses the wisdom of the serpent in the service of noble ideals.

It was characteristic of Professor Seager’s fresh mind and courage at an age when most men relax that he should become an active student of the extraordinary experiment in social reorganization now being conducted in Russia. Popular prejudice had never deterred him from taking a scientist’s interest in any social development and he hesitated as little at sixty as in his youth. Always eager for first-hand knowledge, and eager to share with others, he organized a group of economists to make a tour of inspection in Russia, with the expectation of returning presently for more through researches. It was characteristic also that he should overtax his physical strength in making the most of the opportunities for observation by his companions and himself. He died as he had lived, in the pursuit of knowledge and in the service of others.

The Resolution was adopted by a rising vote of the Faculty…

 

Source:  From the copy of the official minutes of the regular meeting of the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University (October 10, 1930) in Columbia University Archives, Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-29, pp. 656-657.

Image Source: Henry R. Seager (1915) from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Gender

Chicago. Ph.D. Alumna, 1927. Mabel Agnes Magee. Professor at Wells College.

 

 

This post provides some biographical material for Mabel Agnes Magee who received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1927. As I was browsing through Chicago departmental records, I came across her name in a form submitted to hire her as an assistant for three quarters in 1927-28 at a salary of $500. I decided to put on my detective gumshoes and see what I could find about her pre- and post-Chicago life. From at least 1930 (U.S. Census) through her retirement, she taught at the sister college to Cornell, Wells College.  Mabel Magee was born in Massachusetts, did her undergraduate studies at Simmons College, received an M.A. from Columbia University, taught briefly at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, went on Chicago for her Ph.D. in economics. So except for her graduate training at Columbia and Chicago, Mabel Magee spent her academic life entirely in women’s colleges. She is mentioned in Wade L. Thomas’ “A Brief History of the New York State Economics Association” (New York Economic Review, Fall 2011) as the host of meetings at Wells College in May 1948 that constituted the beginning of the “Central New York Economics Conference” that was the predecessor to the New York State Economics Association.

Mabel Magee retired from Wells College to DeBary, Florida, a town just north of Orlando. I have found no indication that she either married or had children. Also, up to now I have not been able to determine when she died. 

__________________

AEA Listing, 1957

MAGEE, Mabel Agnes, Box 469, DeBary, Fla. (1925) Wells Col., prof. emeritus, teach., gov. serv.; b. 1889; B.S., 1912, Simmons Col.; M.A., 1920, Columbia; Ph.D., 1927, Chicago. Fields 14abd, 8, 2b. Doc. dis. Women’s clothing industry of Chicago: study of labor relations. Pub. Trends in location of women’s clothing industry (Univ. of Chicago, 1931); “Constitutional and statutory limitations on local taxation,” 1936, 1938, 1944, “Constitutional and statutory provisions regarding local property taxation,” Tax Systems. Res. Role of federal property its local finance. Dir. Dir. of Amer. Schol.

 

Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, Handbook of the American Economic Association (Jul., 1957), p. 186.

__________________

1912 Simmons Yearbook,  Microcosm

[Portrait and signature], 698 Salem Street, South Groveland, Massachusetts. Groveland High School.

Source: Simmons College. Microcosm 1912, p. 66.

__________________

1923 Wheaton College 1923, Nike

Mabel Agnes Magee was listed as instructor in economics and history in the department of economic and sociology at Wheaton College

[Education] B.S. Simmons College; A.M. Columbia University.

[Previous Employment] Registrar’s Assistant, Simmons College; Private Secretary to president of South End National Bank, Boston; Teller at Haverhill National Bank; Private Secretary to William J. Mack, Impartial Chairman and Arbitrator Ladies’ Garment Industry, Cleveland, Ohio.

Source: Wheaton College yearbook Nike 1923  (edited by class of 1924, Wheaton College), p. 16.

__________________

Miscellaneous Facts Drawn from U.S. Census Reports

1900.  Born December 1889.

1910.  Home on Salem Street in Groveland, Massachusetts. Parents: John and Hannah Magee, born in Canada and Massachusetts, respectively. Two brothers: George and Edward L. Magee.

1920.  [same information, without brother George in household, note: last name incorrectly transcribed as “Magie”]

1930. Home on Main Street South in Ledyard, New York. Occupation “Teacher” at Wells College. Head of household: Anne C. Jones (34 yrs). Also residing there: Mariam R. Small (31 yrs), Elisabeth G. Kimball (30 yrs), and Andrew McGardon (47 yrs).

__________________

From other AEA published membership information

1928. Address given at Faculty Exchange, University of Chicago.

1938. Institutional affiliation given as Wells College.

1948. Institutional affiliation given as Wells College.

1966. No longer included in AEA membership directory.

__________________

 Foreign travel

1952. Arrived in New York City from Amsterdam on a KLM flight on August 25.

1961. Arrived in New York City from Paris on Lufthansa 806. U.S. address given as 12 Estiella [sic, Estrella] Road, Debory [sic, DeBary], Florida.

Source:  From ancestry.org’s immigration and emigration data base.

__________________

 

Image Source:  Senior portrait of Mabel Agnes Magee in the Simmons College Yearbook, Microcosm 1912, p. 66.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Regulations

Columbia. Economics graduate students’ memo of suggestions, 1939

 

The following memo with its cover letter was later attached as “Exhibit B” to a general statement submitted October 25, 1939 to Professor Austin P. Evans, Chairman, Committee on Instruction, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.

“There is appended a confidential memorandum submitted to the executive officer of the Department by a graduate student committee which contains interesting comment and suggestions. (Exhibit B).”

__________________

Cover letter for the graduate students’ memo

Columbia University
May 9, 1939

Dean R. C. McCrea,
Columbia University,
New York City.

Dear Dean McCrea:
As we agreed at luncheon with you and Professor Mills the other day, we are sending you the typed notes of student suggestions to the Department of Economics. We believe that these represent the concurrence of general student opinion, plus the thought we have given these matters.
Hoping that the notes will prove useful to you,

Sincerely yours,

WYLLIS BANKDLER
DICKSON RECK
VON DUSEN KENNEDY
FRANK PIERSON

* * *  *

Notes on some student suggestions for the operation of the Department of Economics, Columbia Graduate Faculty. 5/7/39.

The suggestions concern chiefly gaps that are felt to exist in the offering of the department. There are also a few notes on the method of conducting various types of course, and on the requirements placed on students, and on the allotment of credits.

1) History of Economic Thought. Intrinsic interest in this subject is amplified by a) Oral requirement, and b) the fact that many students feel that they will some day be called upon to teach it. Some feel that the subject is already overemphasized. In any case, there is the feeling that students should not be held responsible for so large a topic unless it is offered.
Various treatments are possible. a) A mere recital of doctrines. b) A tracing of current ideas. c) A combination with Economic History, concerned with the influence of the times on the theories, and vice versa. Treatment (c) is that followed by Professor Mitchell in his former course, and in the extremely useful Lecture Notes made from it.
Student feeling is against being held for “all the doctrines, man by man, and all the men, doctrine by doctrine”. A combination of (b) and (c) above would probably be well received.

2) Economic theory. Statements in the first paragraph under (1) above hold here. This topic is understood to include (a) Systematic presentation of current schools of thought, and (b) in particular, the structure of Neo-Classical (and derivative) Theory. The material under (b) is very well handled by Milton Friedman’s Extension course. Convenience would be served by bringing this into the Graduate Catalogue, so that it would count, without special action, for the 15 central points for Master’s candidates.
Further particular large branches include c) Socialist Theory and d) Institutionalism. Student objection to the existing offering of Socialist Theory falls under two heads. First, it is claimed that the subject matter is not covered adequately in class, that the treatment is diffuse, incomplete and wandering. Second, it is protested that the treatment is not either so fair or so sympathetic as that given, say, Neo-Classical Doctrine.
Institutionalism is handsomely handled by Dr. Dorfman. There is some feeling that the material might be expanded to cover modern Institutionalists and their work and problems more intensively.

3) Economic History. Dr. Hacker’s treatment of American Economic History is very popular, as is Professor Burn’s course in modern capitalism. A course in Modern European Economic History, from the breakdown of Feudalism, would be very well received in addition, although the Burns course could be expanded to fill this need.
There is dissatisfaction with the existing Seminar. Auspices that would concentrate more closely on the material are rather widely held to be desirable. Professor Stockder’s seminar might fill this gap were it admitted to graduate economics standing. A suggestion for procedure should this prove impossible is included under “Catalog” below.

4) Labor. This may be discussed under two heads, a) Offering for the student specializing elsewhere, and b) Specialization in Labor Economics.

a) A General Survey Course in Labor Economics under capable, sympathetic auspices will be subject to very wide demand. Students whose major interest is elsewhere seem to feel quite generally that so important a branch of economics should not be left blank in their education. A large demand will also be forthcoming from first-year students who have not previously studied labor, either at all or adequately, whether or not they intend to specialize here. Such a course is of necessity a large lecture type, and requires in its instructor the specific technique relevant.
A counter-suggestion by the Faculty is that Professor Wolman expand the subject-matter of his course. A very wide and almost unopposed sector of student feeling would prefer bringing in an outsider more cordial to the material and more tolerant of the viewpoints and questions of the members of the class.
b) A Seminar in Labor Relations for the specialist would find many applicants. Student desires as to the auspices are in agreement with the above comments. No university adequately specializes in training labor economists, and it is suggested that Columbia might consider filling this more than local gap.

5) Public Economic Policy. It is safe to say that no subject arouses wider interest among students. At present, public policy is dealt with piecemeal among the several courses, with by no means all the most important aspects being covered at all. (The most thoroughly considered section is monetary policy, both existing and proposed.) It is submitted that this is an important need which Columbia is well fitted to meet without much extra trouble.
Suggestions on this score represent the fusion of two streams of thought; a) The proposal of a joint seminar to explore specific areas of planning and policy, and to be conducted by academic experts in the various fields (Angell, Bonbright, Gayer, Orchard, Macmahon, Lynd, etc.); b) The feeling that contact with people actually engaged in forming and executing public policy would provide a realistic knowledge of problems actually faced (economically, politically, administratively, etc.), as well as valuable personal relations. The suggestion under (b) would involve the invitation to Columbia for one, several, or all meetings of the seminar such men as Berle, Ezekiel, Currie, Tugwell, Mumford, Wallace, etc. etc.
Experience with the mere importation of outside lecturers, as in an instance in the Public Law Department, seems to show that a course so built lacks continuity and depth in grappling with such problems as would be considered under (a) above.
Yet to define the benefits of (b) to the membership of a seminar of manageable size would be wasteful and otherwise undesirable. Two solutions have been advanced, which are not mutually exclusive. The first involves the holding of “public” and “private” meetings in the manner of the Banking Seminar. This could be assisted by co-operation with the Economics Club, that is, the visitors could partially be drained off into luncheon meetings. This solution suffers from several difficulties including the discontinuity of having each outsider only once. The second solution is embodied in the suggestion for Panel Seminars below.
Students would greatly like to co-operate in the organization of this seminar.

6) Agricultural Economics. While this is already a subject of inter-university specialization, a survey course is part of a rounded general offering.

7) Population. Students do not feel that this is ably handled. The suggestion has been made that Professor Goodrich’s course in Internal Migration could be expanded to cover this, and also Regionalism (see under (8) below).

8) Economic Geography. The offering in the School of Business is excellent, and needs only to be given graduate economics status. See also under (7) above and “Catalogue” below.

9) Method and Technique of Research. This includes a thousand little troublesome matters that each professor assumes that the student learns elsewhere. What are the Journals in economics and related fields? How do we keep up with current developments in economics? What are the basic sources in various branches? Where are all these things scattered in the library? How do we begin the investigation of a new topic? How doe we prepare a bibliography? And many others.
The suggestions here fall under three heads. First, it is felt that a booklet answering the above and related questions would prove extremely helpful. Second, instructors should keep this need in mind, and clarify the portions of techniques and bibliography that fall in their sphere. Third, careful bibliographies already existing for various courses, and others that may arise, could be assembled and sold at cost.

10) Panel Seminar. This refers to a method of conducting seminars that shows promise of solving the dilemma of the unwieldiness of large numbers on the one hand, and the wastes of exclusiveness on the other. The discussion is conducted by a panel, consisting of one or more instructors and visitors and a carefully selected small group of students. Where student reports are to be presented, the selection is keyed to guaranteeing excellence and pointedness. An “audience” of students interested in the topic may ask occasional questions from the floor, but does not act to lower the tone of the discussion nor to encumber its progress. The “audience” may be regularly enrolled, receiving attendance credit, or may vary with the particular meeting’s content. Large and varying “audiences” are probably too much for this structure to carry.
It is felt that this method would meet the need in several situations. It should operate to raise the quality of the reports, doing away with the boredom and consequent loss of enthusiasm and tempo that so often assails large seminars now. But at the same time, it would avoid the narrow exclusiveness that operates to keep interested students from an organized study of subjects offered only in seminars.
The seating arrangements suggested by the above description seem rather stiff and stilted and disruptive. In point of fact, they are not a necessary corollary of this division of labor. Ordinary seminar seating can be used, the only requirement being that there is a staff of students who are considered capable, intelligible and interesting, and who do the reporting.
The panel seminar method is especially suggested for the discussion of public economic policy advocated in (5) above, where it is felt that wide student interest would be aroused and should be encouraged.

11) Doctor’s Oral Examinations. Under existing conditions, orals engender a period of rather heavy strain in most students. This period is of the order of two weeks or so, and is not related to the quantity of work being done, but rather to the crisis quality of the examinations. No useful purpose is served by this strain, in fact it is generally considered a hindrance to efficiency.
The remedy seems to be a removal of some of the critical focus upon orals. This may be accomplished, with no loss of academic standards or relevant rigor, by the process of having the true examination take place informally with each of the professors involved before the formal oral is taken. The formal assembled examination then assumes the character of a more official formality, in which passing is nearly certain barring a strong reason to the contrary. This division between the investigation of proficiency and ability on the one hand, and the ceremonial opportunity to forbid the banns on the other, should not only relieve most of the strain on the candidate, but also afford the faculty a more intensive chance to satisfy itself as to the student’s competence.
There are some indications that the present situation approximates this suggestion more closely than appears on the surface. Insofar as this is true, all that is necessary is to let this true state of affairs become clear to the candidates. In any event, more could be done along these lines with benefit and relief to all concerned.

12) Training for Careers. It is important periodically to review the types of career for which students in economics at Columbia are acquiring training, and at the same time to survey the curriculum with respect to the kind of training it chiefly affords. The student body is divided in proportions unknown at present* mainly among those preparing for teaching, for research, and for government service. The curriculum is skewed in the direction of training research workers. This fundamental educational divergence is worth noting, and worth investigating in its effects upon the value of the Economics offering to the students.

*One of the questions on this year’s questionnaire will be directed to this problem.

Many of the curricular suggestions above are directed as much to the problem “what kind of work” as to the problem “research in what field”, and are worthy of reconsideration in this light.

13) Catalog. The arrangement of the catalog, and the standing given by it to various courses, can prove a powerful aid in broadening the area of endeavor for which preparation may be secured here, as well as filling many of the lesser holes mentioned above.
In regard to the standing given courses in other departments, particularly in the School of Business, the effort has been made above to mention fields in which benefit would accrue to Master’s candidates if Graduate Economics Standing were given to certain courses. Particularly does this apply to the offerings of Brissenden, Stockder, perhaps Morgan, and to the advanced courses in Economic Geography. Where this is not feasible, something can be done by way of the advisory committee, see below.
Positive encouragement rather than permission can be given to students to broaden the scope of their studies if the catalog, or if necessary a separate printed or mimeographed announcement, would list as fully as possible all courses in related fields, or isolated courses of interest, that would be profitable to economists. In this way many gaps that the Economics Department cannot hope to fill itself would be plugged, and the benefits of intra-University division of labor would be received.

14) Advisory Committee. This has proved itself useful this year, and should certainly be continued. Its mention here is in connection with the potentialities of cooperation between it and the administration and faculty.
Many of the suggestions in these notes that may prove impossible of fulfillment, particularly those which come together under “Catalog”, may be aided by the unofficial action of the advisory Committee. If the committee is in possession of information concerning related courses, for instance, then even in the absence of official action the broadening of courses of study can be advanced. In this and many similar cases, the worthwhileness of the Department to new students can be increased.

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1 “General departmental notices, memoranda, etc. Curriculum material”, Folder “Committee on Instruction”.

Image Source:  Butler Library, 1939. Columbia’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library blog. April 19, 2018.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Proposed plan to review economics curriculum, 1944

 

A transcription of a 1945 memo from the curriculum committee of the department of economics at Columbia University regarding curricular issues brought up during discussions during the spring of 1944  was posted earlier. In a different box of departmental records I found the following memo that initiated the series of meetings and that provides us some of the backstory for the 1945 memo. I find the curious ordering of the meetings by topics rather random, e.g. theory courses only to be discussed in the second to last session. 

As the note stapled to the bottom of the memo indicates, the proposed days for the meeting were suggested to be shifted to Mondays. The penciled dates shown in square brackets in the transcription are all Mondays.

______________________

Plan to review Columbia’s economics curriculum

January 13, 1944

To the Members of the
Graduate Department of Economics

At our meeting on December 6th there was, we think, general agreement on the need of reviewing our course offerings and some of our present methods of graduate instruction. For such review, and for a more careful consideration of the problems we shall face in the Department during the years immediately following the war, we suggest that a series of meetings be held during the Spring Session. Each meeting could be devoted to consideration of a particular subject or group of subjects in our present curriculum. One meeting could be given to economic theory, another to economic history, another to labor and industrial relations, and so on. It would be desirable, of course, that at each session we have, not the casual and rather unfocussed discussion that was inevitable at our first meeting, in December, but intensive examination of what we are doing, and a consideration of what we should and can do.

As an indication of what might be covered, we list certain matters that might be given attention, each time:

—the substance of our present offering (i.e. a summary account of what is given in our present courses, including an indication of the subjects covered and of the manner in which each course is organized.
—chief present problems in this field of knowledge, and prospective problems in the post-war period.
—relation of work in this field to other fields and the curriculum as a whole.
—teaching procedures employed, and appraisal of results (If seminar system, how effective? If lecture system, or modified lecture system, how effective?)
—relation of our work to what is done elsewhere (in several other leading graduate schools) in this field.
—needs of this field, in the way of equipment of trained men (What equipment is needed by men undertaking work in this field? What are the best means of providing the needed equipment and research experience?)
—recommendations, if any, as to what we should do in the future in this field at Columbia.

This list is, of course, suggestive only; it is not intended to be an outline that should be followed each time. We should doubtless, throughout, keep the whole curriculum in mind, and the relations among activities in different fields, although the discussion at each meeting would center on a particular topic.

Following is a provisional grouping of subjects for discussion at successive meetings:

  1. Labor and industrial relations (including labor law and social insurance) [February 14]
  2. Economic history (excluding the courses on capitalism and investment, which are placed in group #6) [February 21]
  3. International trade and finance [February 28]
    Banking, and monetary economics
  4. Industrial organization [March 6]
    Capitalism in the 19thand 20thcenturies
    Investment and economic change
    Economics of business enterprises
  5. Business cycles[March 13]
    Structure of the American Economy
    Prices
  6. Types of economic organization [March 20]
    …Socialism
    …Types of national planned economy
  7. Statistics[March 27]
    Accounting
  8. Economic theory (including all courses on theory, the history of theory, institutional economics and mathematical economics) [April 3]
  9. Public finance and taxation [April 10]
    Corporation finance
    Public utilities

This tentative grouping is subject to modification, if the general plan is approved by the Department. We hesitate to suggest covering several important topics at a single meeting, but we can see no other way to keep the time schedule within reasonable limits.

Our purposes in holding these meetings would perhaps be better served by afternoon meetings, running for two hours, than by evening sessions. As a possibility we suggest Wednesday, from 3 to 5 o’clock in 304 Fayerweather, beginning on February 9th. We should probably plan to have the discussion of each topic opened with a statement from the Department member concerned—a statement that might run from 20 to 40 minutes, depending on the number of subjects to be covered at that meeting. Thereafter time should be given for general discussion. Particular attention would be given in this discussion to the relation of the topic in question to other subjects covered in our curriculum.

The Curriculum Committee would be glad to have the judgment of the members of the Department on this proposal. If you approve the general plan, will you let us know whether you could attend meetings on Wednesday afternoon from 3 to 5 o’clock?

Sincerely yours,

CARTER GOODRICH
FREDERICK C. MILLS
CARL S. SHOUP
WESLEY C. MITCHELL, Chairman

[added] NOTE: We find that a Wednesday afternoon schedule for the proposed meetings would involve at least one serious conflict. Accordingly, we suggest that the meetings be held on Monday afternoon from 4 to 6. Is this time suitable? If so, our first session might be held on Monday, February 14th.

Curriculum Committee

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2 “Faculty”, Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty, Beginning January 1, 1944”.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Princeton Salaries Stanford UCLA Virginia Wisconsin Yale

Economics Faculty Salaries for 15 U.S. universities. Hart Memo, April 1961

 

Here we have a memo written by member of the Columbia University economics department executive committee, Albert G. Hart, that presents the results of what appears to be his informal polling of the chairpersons of 21 departments. Fifteen of the departments provided the salary ranges at four different ranks. No further details are provided, this one page memo was simply filed away in a folder marked “memoranda”. Maybe there is more to be found in Hart’s papers at Columbia University. Up to now I have only sampled Hart’s papers for teaching materials and perhaps next time, I’ll need to look into his papers dealing with departmental administrative affairs.

For a glance at salaries about a half-century earlier:  Professors and instructors’ salaries ca. 1907. 

________________

AGH [Albert Gailord Hart] 4/21/61

CONFIDENTIAL information on economic salaries, 1960-61, from chairmen of departments

Institution

 Professors Associate professors Assistant professors

Instructors
Harvard

$12,000-22,000

 $9,000-12,000 $7,500-8,700

$6,500
Princeton

$12,000-…?…

 $9,000-11,500 $7,000-8,750

$6,000-6,750
California

$11,700-21,000

 $8,940-10,344 $7,008-8,112

$5,916-6,360
MIT

$11,000-20,000

 $8,000-11,000 $6,500-9,000

$5,500-5,750
Minnesota

$11,000-18,000

 $8,500-11,000 $6,800-8,400

?
COLUMBIA

$11,000-20,000

 $8,500-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-5,750
Northwestern

$11,000-…?…

 $8,000-11,000 $6,800-7,500

?
Duke

$11,400-16,000

 $8,200-10,000 $7,200-8,200

$5,800-6,500
Illinois

$11,000-15,000

 $7,500-10,000 $6,900-8,600

$6,500-7,100
Cornell

$10,000-15,000

 $8,000-10,000 $6,500-7,500

$5,500-6,500
Indiana

$10,000-14,800

 $8,300-10,000 $6,500-7,500

?
Michigan

$10,000-…?…

 $8,700-..9,500 $6,600-8,000

$5,000
Virginia

$..9,800-15,000

 $7,800-..9,800 $6,600-7,800

?
Wisconsin

$..9,240-16,150

 $8,000-..9,000 $6,550-8,460

$5,250-5,450
Iowa State (Ames)

$..8,500-13,000

 $7,500-..8,500 $6,700-8,000

$4,700-6,600

[…]

Note: The following institutions for which data were not included in the source materials are believed to pay their economists at scales at or above the Columbia level:

Carnegie Tech
Chicago
Johns Hopkins
Stanford
Yale
UCLA

[…]

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbia University, Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials: Box 11, Folder: “Economics—Memoranda”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Economists Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Ph.D. Alumnus, William H.S. Stevens, 1912

 

The following letter from E.R.A. Seligman that recommended the appointment of three young economists to junior positions in Columbia College for 1912/13 was the starting point for this post.  B. M. Anderson, Jr. and R. M. Haig were already well known to me.  The third economist, W. S. Stevens, was completely new however, even though I have become reasonably familiar with the comings and goings of people who had taught economics at Columbia during the first half of the 20thcentury. And so I went to work to figure out the future career (with respect to this April 23, 1912 letter) of Mr. W.S. Stevens.  My results are found below, following the letter and they present a teachable moment about the use of the subscription genealogical website ancestry.com in tracking down economists of yore. Incidentally many research and public libraries provide access to ancestry.com for their users. That site together with the digital archives of hathitrust.org and archive.org were used to follow this economist’s career. 

What did I learn from this exercise? Well, a reprint of a single QJE article represented a dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania in 1912. Also the life of an itinerant scholar is a real challenge to reconstruct, but especially for those cases when the absorbing state turns out to be a job outside of academia. An obituary or a tip from a death certificate pointing to the last employment is extremely useful should you be able to find one.

Incidentally, for those with more of a genealogical interest in this economist: W. S. Stevens was married three times: to Edyth Josephine Frost (1911-1922, divorce; one child, Joseph Libby Stevens b. 1913, d. 2000); to Mary E. Laird (1923-?); and to Rachel Bretherton (?-1966, died in 1966). 

_________________

Copy of Seligman letter recommending three instructional appointments to Columbia College

April 23, 1912

Mr. F. P. Keppell
Dean, Columbia College.

My dear Dean Keppel:-

I take pleasure in nominating herewith the following gentlemen for positions in the College:-

Dr. B. M. Anderson, Jr., [A.B., Missouri, 1906; A.M., Illinois, 1910; Ph.D., Columbia, 1911] instructor, reappointment.

W. S. Stevens, Colby College, A.B., 1905; George Washington University, A.M., 1909; Chicago University, Summer, 1910; Cornell University, 1910-11; Chicago University, Summer, 1911; University of Pennsylvania, 1911-12; Fellow in Economics and Political Science, George Washington University, 1908-1909; Fellow in Economics, Cornell, 1910-1911; Assistant in Economics, Pennsylvania, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics.

R. M. Haig, A.B., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1908; A.M., University of Illinois, 1909; Secretary and Research Assistant to the Dean of Graduate School, University of Illinois, 1909-11; Garth Fellow, Columbia, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics. (Will receive degree of Ph.D. this autumn).

If there is any further information that I can give you about these gentlemen, pray command me.

Faithfully yours,

SE-S

Source:  Columbia University Archives.  Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman Collection, Box 36, Folder “Box 98A, Columbia (A-Z) 1911-1913”.

_________________

 

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
Publications

William Harrison Spring Stevens (University of Pennsylvania). The powder trust, 1872-1912. [cover: “Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1912. Reprint of QJE article].

William S. Stevens (William S. Stevens). The powder trust, 1872-1912. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3 (May, 1912), pp. 444-481.

W. S. Stevens (Columbia University). A group of trusts and combinations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, No. 4 (August, 1912), pp. 593-643.

William S. Stevens (Ph.D. Columbia University), ed. Industrial combinations and trusts. New York: Macmillan, 1914.

William H. S. Stevens (Ph.D. Sometime Professor of Business Management in the Tulane University of Louisiana). Unfair Competition: A Study of Certain Practices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917. [Dedication: “To Professor James C. Egbert of Columbia University with pleasant recollections of my experience in administrative work as his subordinate”]

 

_________________

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
C.V.

Born April 15, 1885 [3, 4] in Eau Claire, Wisconsin [4]

Colby College, A.B., 1905 [1]

George Washington University, A.M., 1909 [1]

Chicago University, Summer, 1910 [1]

Cornell University, 1910-11 [1]

Chicago University, Summer, 1911 [1]

University of Pennsylvania, 1911-12 [1]

Fellow in Economics and Political Science, George Washington University, 1908-1909; [1]

Fellow in Economics, Cornell, 1910-1911 [1]

Assistant in Economics, Pennsylvania, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics. [1]

University of Pennsylvania. Ph.D., 1912 [2]

Instr. in econ., Columbia Univ., 1912-15 [2]

Prof. bus. management, Tulane Univ. of La., 1915-16 [2]

Special expert, Federal Trade Commission, 1917 [2]

Assistant chief economist, Federal Trade Commission [3]

Economist at Interstate Commerce Commission, 1942 [4]

Last occupation. “Dr. of Econ., Fed Government” [5]

Died September 14, 1972 in Alexandria Virginia [5]

Sources:

[1] Seligman letter (above) April 23, 1912

[2] General Alumni Catalogue, University of Pennsylvania, 1917, p. 474.

[3] World War I, Draft Registration Card. September 12, 1918.

[4] World War II, Draft Registration Card, April 27, 1942

[5] Death Certificate, State of Virginia September 20, 1972

_________________

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
Fun Fact: Son of the American Revolution

“John Boyes, my great grandfather, enlisted in April 1777 in the 6thCompany, 3d N.H. regiment; Daniel Livermore Capt., Alex Scammell Col. He served three years, participated in battles of Hubbardstown, Stillwater, first and second Monmouth and was in Gen. Sullivan’s expedition against the six Indian Nations (Iroquois). He was wounded in the arm at Stillwater and later was captured and transported to Limerick, Ireland, and thence to Mill Prison in England where he was confined for one year. He was honorably discharged after three years service, on April 6, 1790.”

Source: Application by William H. S. Stevens (September 24, 1962) for Membership in the Virginia Society of the National Society, Sons of the American Revolution. as great-grandson of John Boyes (27 September 1760 in Boston, died 2 May 1833 in Madison Maine).

Image Source:  William H. S. Stevens class portrait from the his college yearbook, Colby Oracle, 1906.

 

Categories
Cambridge Chicago Columbia Economic History Economists Germany Harvard NBER Stanford

Chicago. Friedman memo regarding Karl Bode and Moses Abramovitz, 1947

 

In the following 1947 memo from Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz we can read two talent-scouting reports on potential appointments for the University of Chicago economics department. One candidate, Karl Bode had been vouched for by Allen Wallis, a trusted friend and colleague of Milton Friedman, but we can easily read Friedman’s own less than enthusiastic report on the meager published work examined, certainly compared to Friedman’s glowing report for his friend from Columbia student days, Moses Abramovitz. But comparing the publications listed in the memo, I certainly wouldn’t fault Friedman’s revealed preference for Abramovitz.

Abramovitz went on to have a long and distinguished career at Stanford and Bode left Stanford for government service with his last occupation according to his death certificate “Planning Director, Agency for International Development (A.I.D.)”

Since Karl Bode turned out to have cast a relatively short academic shadow, I have appended some biographical information about him at the end of this post. But for now just the vital dates: Karl Ernst Franz Bode was born November 24, 1912 in Boennien, Germany and he died March 18, 1981 in Arlington, VA.

__________________

Milton Friedman on Bode and Abramovitz

January 10, 1947

[To:] Mr. Schultz, Economics
[From:] Mr. Friedman, Economics
[Re:] Staff appointments

In connection with staff appointments, I thought it might be helpful if I put down on paper for you the information I have on two persons whose names I have casually mentioned: Karl Bode and Moses Abramovitz.

  1. Karl Bode (Assoc. Prof. of Economics, Stanford)

I know about Bode primarily from Allen Wallis. Allen considers him absolutely first-rate in all respects and recommends him very highly.

Bode, who is now in his early thirties, was born in Germany and, though Catholic of Aryan descent, and the holder of a highly-prized governmental fellowship, left Germany almost immediately after Hitler’s accession. He went first to Austria, then to Switzerland, where he took his Ph.D., in 1935, then to England, where he studied at Cambridge and at the London School. Bernard Haley met him while at Cambridge, was highly impressed with him, and induced him to come to Stanford, where he has been since 1937. He has been on leave of absence since early 1945, first with the Tactical Bombing Survey, then with the Allied Military Government in Berlin. He is expected back sometime this summer.

At Stanford, Bode is responsible for American and European Economic History, and, in addition, has taught advanced courses in Economic Theory. His original interest was in International Trade. He has a contract to write a text on Economic History, but I do not know whether on American or European Economic History.

I have obtained a list of his publications, most of which are fragments or reviews. Three of more general interest are:

(a) A. W. Stonier: “A New Approach to the Methodology of the Social Sciences”, Economica, Vol. 4, p. 406-424, Nov., 1937.

(b) “Plan Analysis and process analysis: AER, 33-348-54, June 1943.

(c) “A Note on the Mathematical Coincidence of the instantaneous and the serial multiplier”, Review of Economic Statistics, 26: 221-222, Nov. 1944.

I have read these. They are too slight to permit a reliable and comprehensive judgment about his capacities; but they are sufficient to demonstrate a clear, logical mind.

Allen tells me that Schumpeter, Haberler, Howard Ellis, and of course, the Stanford people all know him and could provide evidence about his abilities.

 

  1. Moses Abramovitz (member of research staff in charge of business cycle unit, National Bureau of Economic Research.)

Abramovitz got his bachelor’s at Harvard, his Ph.D. at Columbia. He has done some part-time teaching of Theory at Columbia. During the war he was with the Office of Strategic Services, where he worked on foreign economic conditions. He was a member of the reparations commission staff at both the Moscow and Paris Conferences.

Abramovitz and I were fellow graduate students at Columbia, and I have known him rather well ever since. I think him extremely capable, with an excellent mind, broad interests, and an extraordinary capacity for forming a sound judgment from conflicting evidence.

His academic and private research background is mostly in Economic Theory and Business Cycles; but the war years gave him a considerable background, and generated a real interest, in foreign economic relations.

Some of his writings are:

Selected Publications:

An Approach to a Price Theory for a Changing Economy, Columbia University Press, 1939.

Monopolistic Selling in a Changing Economy, Q.J.E., Feb., 1938.

Saving vs Investment: Profits vs Prosperity?Supplement on papers relating to the TNEC, Am. Econ. Rev., June, 1942.

Book on Cyclical behavior of inventories completed and scheduled to be published shortly by Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research.

M.F.

ab

* * * * *

PUBLICATIONS OF KARL BODE

A new approach to the methodology of the social sciences. (With A.W. Stonier): Economica, vol. 4, pp. 406-424, November, 1937.

Prosperität und Depression: Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, vol. 8, pp. 597-614, December, 1937.

Review of: Plotnik, M.J. Werner Sombart and his type of economics. 1937. American Economic Review, 28: 522-523, September, 1938.

Review of: Sombart, Werner. Weltanschauung, Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. 1938. Ibid., 28: 766, December, 1938.

The acceptance of defeat in Germany: Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 38: 193-198, April, 1943.

Plan analysis and process analysis: American Economic Review, 33: 348-354, June, 1943.

Review of: Day, C. Economic Development in Europe. 1942:Journal of economic History, 2: 225-227, November, 1942.

Catholics in the postwar world: America, 71: 347-348, July, 1944

Economic aspects of morale in Nazi Germany: Pacific Coast Economic Association: Papers, 1942. pp. 29-34, 1943.

Reflections on a reasonable peace: Thought, 19: 41-48, March, 1944

Review of: Dempsey, B.W. Interest and usury. 1943: Ibid., 18: 756-758, December, 1943.

German reparations and a democratic peace: Thought, 19: 594-606, December, 1944

A note on the mathematical coincidence of the instantaneous and the serial multiplier: Review of Economic Statistics, 26: 221-222, November, 1944.

 

Source:Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 79, Folder 1 “University of Chicago, Minutes. Economics Department 1946-1949”.

__________________

Karl F. Bode
AEA 1969 Directory of Members, p. 41.

Bode, Karl F., government; b. Germany, 1912; student, U. Bonn-Germany, 1931-33, U. Vienna-Austria, 1933-34; Ph.D., U. Bern-Switzerland, 1935; Cambridge-England, 1935-37. DOC.DIS. The Concept of Neutral Money, 1935. FIELDS 2abc, 1c, 4a. Chief, Regional Organization & Program Staff, Intl. Cooperation Adm., 1955-60, asst. dep. dir. for planning, 1960-62; chief, Planning Assistance & Research Div., Agy. for Intl. Dev., 1962-67; dir., Research, Evaluation & Information Retrieval, Agy. for Internat. Dev. since 1967. ADDRESS Vietnam Bur., Agy. for Internat. Dev., Dept. State, Washington, DC 20523.

__________________

 Haberler Report of Mises’s Private Seminar

Regular participants of the seminar were several members of the Mont Pelerin Society – notably Hayek, Machlup, the late Alfred Schutz and in the very early days, John V. Van Sickle. Visiting scholars regarded it a great honor to be invited to the seminar – among them Howard S. Ellis (University of California), Ragnar Nurkse (late Professor of Economics in Columbia University, New York) whose untimely death occurred three years ago, Karl Bode (later in Stanford University and now in Washington), Alfred Stonier (now University College in London), and many others. There was Oskar Morgenstern (now Princeton University), the late Karl Schlesinger and Richard Strigl, two of the most brilliant economists of their time…the unforgettable Felix Kaufmann, philosopher of the Social Sciences in the broadest sense including the law and economics – he also wrote a much debated book on the logical foundation of mathematics – who after his emigration in 1938 joined the Faculty of the New School for Social Research in New York where he taught with great success until his premature death twelve years ago.

Source: Mises’s Private Seminar: Reminiscences by Gottfried Haberler. Reprint from The Mont Pelerin Quarterly, Volume III, October 1961, No. 3, page 20f. Posted at the Mises Institute website.

__________________

 From the Preface of Felix Kaufman’s 1936 book

For the critical editing of the manuscript and of the galleys, I wish to thank most heartily a number of friends in various countries, expecially Dr. Karl Bode, presently of St. John’s College, Cambridge and Dr. Alfred Schütz of Vienna. Dr. Bode has also taken upon himself the great labor of preparing both indexes.

Source: Felix Kaufmann. Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. [English translation of Methodenlehre der Sozialwissenschaften. Wien: Julius Springer, 1936.] from Felix Kaufmann’s Theory and Method in the Social Sciences, Robert S. Cohen and Ingeborg K. Helling (eds.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy and  History of Science, 303. Springer: 2014.

__________________

 Reports from The Stanford Daily

The Stanford Daily, Volume 93, Issue 47, 29 April 1938

Several distinguished scholars from other universities will join the Stanford faculty next year…Dr. Karl Franz Bode, formerly on the faculty of St. John’s College, Cambridge University, England, was appointed assistant professor of economics to succeed Dr. Donald M. Erb who was appointed president of the University of Oregon….

 

The Stanford Daily, Volume 100, Issue 02, 23 September 1941, p. 1.

Econ Department Changes Classes… History of Currency Problems, 118, will he given in fall quarter rather than in the spring quarter. It is a five-unit course, taught MTWThF at 11 a.m. in Room 200Q by Karl F. Bode. Economics 1 and 2 are prerequisites….

 

The Stanford Daily, Volume 103, Issue 86, 28 May 1943, p. 1.

Wilbur Names New Faculty Promotions. Promotions and appointments of faculty members for the academic year 1943-1944 were announced yesterday by Chancellor Ray Lyman Wilbur. … Those promoted from assistant professor to associate professor are … Dr. Karl F. Bode, economics….

 

The Stanford Daily, Volume 111, Issue 20, 7 March 1947, p. 3

President Donald B. Tresidder yesterday announced 37 faculty promotions. The promotions include 11 faculty members to full professorships, six to associate professorships, and two to assistant professorships, together with promotion of 18 members of the clinical faculty at the Stanford School of Medicine in San Francisco….

To professorships … Karl F. Bode, in economics…

 

The Stanford Daily, Vol 119, Issue 7, 13 February 1951, p. 1.

Dr. Karl F. Bode, Stanford economics professor on leave for government duty in Germany, has been appointed deputy economic adviser, Office of Economic Affairs, it has been announced by the office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. Dr. Bode will be stationed in Bonn, Germany. He has been acting chief of the program division in the Office of Economic Affairs.

 

Image Source: Karl Bode from the 1939 Standford Quad.